The truth is there was a lot of good when CzechoSlovakia existed but national stereotype amongs us "CzechoSlovaks" was to always blame the other side. Now we are separate and there is noone to blame anymore.. It's time to move on.
Peter

In some aspects, Slovakia has made huge progress over the past 20 years, in other aspects, it still dwells in the Communist times. The most recent example of this is the President's decision not to appoint the new State Prosecutor after almost 1.5 years of waiting. This was made possible by a decision of the Constitutional Court after a telephone call between the President and the President of the Court, as Slovak media have it. Court decisions and decisions (not) to prosecute are still being bought in Slovakia by those who can afford it, but the fact of the country having a one party government with exceptionally friendly ties at the Presidential Palace, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, is something that raises serious worries for all Slovaks.

............
Obvious attempt of slander, however you should realise that overuse of that fashionable word “anti-Semite” is losing its impact especially when it has nothing to do with your point. The more rational words should have been anti-communism and Catholicism.

Tell me who voted for communists in 1948 and enslaved the former Czechoslovakia with that regime Czechs or Slovaks?

@Didomyk, I am shattered by your criticism of Polish, Russian and Jewish crimes, both real and imagined. When you are finally done with chopping to bits all your neighbours could you perhaps tell us something about Ukraine?

"so what? One JoeMilovan with his Dresden makes some difference/compromises the union you dislike with or without him?"

Yes, on an opinion forum it matters because honesty is vital for trying to build good neighbourhood relations, (preferably without the hindrance of an "EU"). Truth beats dogma.
Joe also serves as an excellent example of how "EU" fanatics have achieved the opposite with their dogma of "ever-closer-integration". He doesn't seem to like Europeans much.

Didomyk,
You know that the prewar Zakarpattia was part of Slovakia. When Ukraine will make the noble gesture and review the Stalin’s deed. Is not Crimea enough for you? Cheers!

Joe,
My wife is from Peru and about 5 years ago I bought an apartment in Miraflores where I spend winters (actually I am there right now). However, you are right the European lifestyle is closest to my heart and usually I revisit every year. Of course during communist’s hey-days I was persona non-grata, I was even sentenced in absentia for illegally escaping.

Hello Forlana,
I understand you are connecting my name to Serbia from my posts...Serbia’s problem is US foreign policies, while in the ME they (US) are fighting against Muslims radicals for obvious reasons, in Balkans they are supporting them and even looking the other way at the influx of Al Qaida in Bosnia and Kosovo – a subtle “help” for stabilising Europe.

Forlana, what Polish camps? I honestly don't recall making any comment. (Please correct me if I am wrong...)
As for the Drzh. comment - I think you are a bit younger than I am. Those were other times, under Soviet occupation, and the comment was not made out of hatred but out of irony. I cited it, because I think Russians can to some extent claim to be Communism's FIRST victims. Remember, Stalin was Georgian...
How are things in Poland? Are people optimistic or pessimistic about the New Year? Here people tend to be excessively pessimistic, after begin excessively optimistic before the Euro-crisis. Our spread over German bunds is plummeting which is an excellent sign.

Now, that tells us a lot about your intellectual maturity, let alone about your judgement.
Crimes are crimes and no amount of 'patriotic solidarity' will whitewash any crimes from history's records, be they Russian, German, Polish, Jewish, Hungarian, Serbian, Italian, Turkish, French, Japanese or whatever (American included).
BTW this blog is not about your 'shattered' emotions. Looks like you have nothing of substance (!) to contribute on the current topic. Maybe you should ask TE editors to start a new topic under the heading 'Shattered emotions'.

I don't think so, Birtnick. He only serves as an example of someone who pushes own vision of own country at the cost of other countries. Simply put - deliberately bad-mouths others and distors facts from history/recent times. With or without EU he would do just like that. By no means he's an example of a 'true EU-fanatic, rather the opposite.

@Didomyk, yes I know you are much more mature :))) You have matured long ago. But that's not your fault. What is your fault is that in your 'internationalism' you are the first to point to real and imagined faults of others, but never ever tell us about past and present Ukraine.

@Milovan Joe - yes, good question 'what Polish camps'. Refresh your memory browsing through own history. And really stop joshing here, you are doing a disservice to your homeland, not promoting it.

"Crimes are crimes and no amount of 'patriotic solidarity' will whitewash any crimes from history's records, be they Russian, German, Polish, Jewish, Hungarian, Serbian, Italian, Turkish, French, Japanese or whatever (American included)".

Your attempts to whitewash and justify the genocidal crimes of your heroes from the fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its thugs called UPA will also also fail.

Does anyone here find it rather contradictory that the most strident nationalist contributors to this blog are without question the advocates of the “EU”, the Eurobots?
Take ‘Joe’ who put in a “star” turn of tub-thumping when addressing 'Didomyk' at 1.06 yesterday with his usual ranting about the UK.

Well, you poor misinformed individual, it may interest you to know that the study of history in the UK was revised many years ago to take account of the disappearance of empire and a now multi-cultural society. It is an on-going process, but why pro-Bot propaganda should be a part of history teaching in schools to satisfy Bots, I fail to understand. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing the teaching of history from propaganda. This certainly doesn't surprise me.

Tell me about Italian history, Joe. We all know about the crimes of the Nazis, but what about Italians? Have their crimes been airbrushed out of history? Tell us about the Italian Rab and Gonars concentration camps, Italian atrocities in Slovenia, the Italian 2nd army's crimes against Yugoslav partisans, Mario Roatta who easily matched Arthur Seyss Inquart, WW2 Reichskommissar in the Netherlands, in his inhumanity, Italian abominations in Greece......etc.

No Nürnberg trials for Italians, eh? Roatta died in his bed, unlike Seyss Inquart who was hanged at Nürnberg. Do Italians KNOW this, Joe? Collective amnesia does wonders for the conscience, but isn't it time you cleaned your own back yard?

And you talk of DRESDEN, a subject which has been debated in the UK for 70 years, with Anglo-German reconciliation ceremonies.

I wonder what sort of “Europe” you people want with your “Ever Closer Integration, Ever Closer Hatreds”?

Can you tell me anything about its treatment of Italy in British history?

The Rab concentration camp was exactly that - a camp to concentrate prisoners - not a death camp. Some 16 thousand Slovenians and Croatians died there (the district of the island is called "Kampor" and the remains may still be visited today.
The camp was divided into two sections: one for Slavs, who were treated atrociously - and another for Jews, who were treated to excellent shelter, food, medical supplies and, in general, protection from deportation by the Nazis. The Jews were put in this camp to fool the Germans, who did not realise they were being protected and treated very well there (I would recommend reading some Jewish sources on this point).
Gonars - which is very close to where I live - was used especially for Communist Partisans, both Italian and Slovenian. General Roatta, who was the man behind most of these policies as military commander in the region, was as fanatically anti-Slav as he was pro-Jewish.
These issues have been treated by a joint Italo-Slovenian Historical Commission during the 90's. Don't forget that the Yugoslav Partisans exacted their revenge, dumping into mass graves thousands and even tens of thousands of Italians at the end of the war. The Joint Historical Commission rejected claims by both countries that these tragic events represented instances of "genocide".

No, there is no conscience to "clear" here. However, one of the reasons why Pier Luigi Bersani joined the Italian Communist Party, and indeed that political formation commanded upwards of 35% of the vote in the postwar period, was because there had never been a Nuremberg Trial for Italian fascist leaders.
It was mostly the United Kingdom that decided not to put Italian leaders on trial - aside from Trieste, which Arnold Toynbee at the Chatham House was busy trying to grab as England's final colony ("Hong Kong on the Adriatic") the UK was busy staking out its sphere of influence in the Mediterranean, including Italy and Greece, and was eager to use the former Italian Fascists against the "Communists".
This is a historical complaint of the Italian Left against the Anglo-Americans - and when The Economist prints articles supporting the Vatican-backed Monti to "block the Radical Left" in our country, old anger returns to the surface.

Italian abominations in Greece? We got the shite kicked out of us, remember? There were no Italian prisoners of war in Greece, they stood to the death and were massacred. And, unlike Germany, we paid our war reparations to Athens after (mostly in war materiel).

Look better at the record - Italy has been made to pay for its mistakes for well over half a century - and we are still under Occupation.

"Can you tell me anything about its treatment of Italy in British history?"

A daft comment and completely beside my point because Italy owes its very existence as a nation state to Britain.

My point was in reaction to your disgraceful, lying reference to Dresden, of which everyone is aware because there was and is so much debate and remorse for it, unlike Italian crimes which are less aired - if at all!

The Italians 'got the shite kicked out of them' by the Greeks, eh Joe ... but not before they had treated the Greeks abominably.

Joe’s reference to Dresden was particularly dishonest and distasteful, especially when one considers the soul-searching that has accompanied the debate over the fire-bombing. I remember the demonstrations in Parliament Square in 2005 commemorating the 60th anniversary of the event, the sole aim of which was to keep the memory alive. This is why everybody has heard of what happened at Dresden.

Not like Italy, as you say. Do you think Italian schoolchildren are taught of the atrocities inflicted on Abyssinia, as the Brits are taught about British colonial crimes? Unlikely. God help us if the likes of Joe ever get to write the Bot approved version of European history.

Poor Joe, gnawed away by his euro-hatreds and his crippling chip.

“And here’s the part that I found most moving: on top of the church (the Frauenkirche at Dresden) today is a golden cross given by the people of Great Britain. It was crafted by the son of one of the pilots who bombed Dresden and it bears this message: “Build bridges—Live Reconciliation—Bolster Belief.”

"A new Jewish women’s group in Italy is taking a stand against what it sees as a growing legitimization of fascism and anti-Semitism in the country".

"However, despite all this activity, there is a growing tendency to rewrite history by giving in to demands of “letting bygones be bygones” and offering equal honor to the memory of fascists as to their victims’ for the sake of national pacification".

I can’t believe it. The usual Charlemagne gang migrated to Eastern Approaches and to the blog which I am especially delighted on Slovakia the small country of my accentors from where I escaped at the height of the cold war and under the James Bond like circumstances. Think of a major European river and a large tree trunk floating in it that was initially drifting to the wrong side but eventually steered to the other side of the iron curtain.

That's a rather interesting episode but you did not say if you think you are qualified to be the next US Chief Justice ? :) Perhaps your plans may have been upset by your co-patriots since, according to wiki, "there are currently about 790,000 people of Slovak descent living in the United States" !

Forlana Jan 8th, 07:57
“Finally, a great agreement re: EC members shouldn't care about national electorates” !!!
Oh really? There we have it, proof indeed that the “'genious' EU” progressive program to destroy democracy has its supporters. Delightful to know.
“Great” news indeed along with soaring unemployment in the West thanks to the single currency.
The “EU” solution to its self-created problems? Simple. Abolish democratic accountability and democracy entirely.
A simply “great” agreement, Forlana: “EC members shouldn't care about national electorates”, the unelected totalitarian Brussels apparatchiks obviously wouldn’t like that, so that these same unelected officials can continue to add their self-serving institutional "service layers" ad nauseam all paid for by tax payers who have no say in the matter.
Why not an intergovernmental solution to your “e.g. Český Těšín and Ćeszyn” relations instead of expecting taxpayers from the West to pay for yet another “EU service layer” via an unaccountable organisation? Yet you wonder why the “EU” is held in such contempt in the West!
Your “great agreement “ is right up there with your “the EU is a ‘genious’ structure”.
God help Europe.

Birtnick, when I saw your nick I smiled - Birtnick got out of his bed after his New Year's Eve party! And then smile turned sour when I started reading... are you doing it consciously, taking the words out of context, cutting the cited sentence in half? Can't you honestly make your point and defend it effectively and successfully on your own? I believe you can, except 'successfully' part, of course :)

That is exactly what the "EU" sets out to do and continues to do.
It is the truth: it is a self-serving organisation that has no respect for the democratic process. No need for me to defend my comments.
You may find it a "genious" solution and "structure", but it is no laughing matter, as you will inevitably find out.
You guys must live in a parallel universe: did you catch what your "head honcho" Barosso has just declared?
*“Peripheral states appear to be caught in a downward spiral of falling economic output, rapidly rising unemployment and eroding individual incomes”*
To attempt to find a reply to the utter pig-ignorance and sheer remoteness particular to the parallel universe in which the regressive dictatorship dwells compels me to utter crudity...
"No Shit Sherlock"!

They are appointed by other ex-(failed)-politicians i.e bureaucrats, not elected, as you well know, and the electorates had no say in their appointments or in their policymaking: that is how the "EU" operates and is why Europe is in its present situation, so far divorced from the "demos" that it serves you only "crats" i.e it is totalitarian; democracy does not come into it as it removes the "demos". It is a disaster, in case you hadn't noticed. Dicatatorships do not last.

Before you suggest it, you cannot compare this appointment-by-bureaucrats to appointments to national cabinets, the members of which campaign for election on a party ticket.

Put as simply as I can: do you think that Germans would have voted for €-membership if they had been consulted?

Currently, it's delegated representative democracy. We can loosely compare the nomination of EC members by national government to appointment of foreign ambassadors by national governments. If "demos" is not happy, they can elect a different representatives who then nominate different candidates to EC next time the commission is being formed.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind other models - like the process of nomination of federal governments - as results of elections to federal assemblies (EP) with consideration of national parity to achieve national plurality... But they would still had responsibility for the whole federation/union, not purely national electorate.

But I'm afraid we're not there yet just because of the resistance from the side of national politics.

As for referenda - they are results of media massage, or how do you think common people get make their opinions about politics? Give me control over British media and I will make Britons to become Euro-adorers ;-))

"We can loosely compare the nomination of EC members by national government to appointment of foreign ambassadors by national governments."
No, we cannot, even loosely, for the reason given above.
NATO also has its national delegates for its international affairs, but it does not pretend to be a government, which Brussels does: there is no nation called "EUrope" yet Brussels legislates, imposes taxes without a direct mandate to do so, behaving as a state without being one. It has no demos and is trying through dictatorial means to bring one into being. It is a farcical regression almost to your Habsburg past, and it is a failure of catastrophic proportions.

"Give me control over British media and I will make Britons to become Euro-adorers ;-))"
You may believe in propaganda. Brussels most certainly does, and it hates the ballot.

"Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind other models - like the process of nomination of federal governments - as results of elections to federal assemblies (EP) with consideration of national parity to achieve national plurality... But they would still had responsibility for the whole federation/union, not purely national electorate."
Well, I am glad "we're not there yet just because of the resistance from the side of national politics": this is the prime reason why Brussels wants to elimate the nation states, simply because they are (in most advanced western states) the best vehicle for democracy to date, indeed a large obstacle for the dictatorship that has no democratic agenda.

Witness its present propaganda and how much more agitated Brussels has become about a "Brexit" than a "Grexit", simply because it fears losing one of its biggest milch-cows.
It will use all propaganda available to it (all paid for by the tax-payer whom it doe NOT represent legitimately) to prevent a "Brexit". It is an organisation without democratic legitimacy and makes and breaks its own laws, and does not respect the rule of law.
It has no legitimate authority to influence and decide the future government of e.g. Britain, which is why it is hated and not only by Britain.

I often wondered what you "EU" apologists would have to say if you had to pay for it, with Barosso about to award himself a Nobel for Economics no doubt while his countrymen starve.

BTW Forgot to say that if the Polish and Czech 'national electorates' were consulted about joining the €, then the common currency would be rejected.
But they won't be, so it will be adopted.
I'd drop it. As you say, "it's pretty basic stuff".

Birtnick, I'd like you to explain me one thing: on the one hand, you are apologist of national states and are against closer pan-European cooperation. On the other hand you are defender of the multi-national UK. And don't tell me that she's one nation: It's just recently that British press has published articles about English youngsters being beaten in Wales for being English or about riots in Northern Ireland because of displaying the UK flag.

My vision for Europe is consistent: I believe that the best solution for Europe is to develop national states but within larger pan-European framework that would provide the service layer for issues (especially economic development, security, energetic security, transportation, etc.) that are not nation-specific and can be done more efficiently on the larger scale corresponding to multi-polar world of 21st century... The concrete mechanisms with which this solutions should be optimally accomplished needs to thoroughly considered and discussed from many viewpoints, including stability and fairness (it's related - unfair solutions are usually not stable in long term).

So, please introduce first your vision and then the technicalities. But I find that its difficult to discuss with commentators who grab some technicalities that may not be optimal in current arrangement (especially due to refusal from national states to give a go to a more independent and democratically elected European institutions) and use it to reject the core notion (i.e. principle of pan-European framework).

You'll love this: I was searching the net for exotic and affordable holiday destinations for this summer, and found a fascinating month-by-month breakdown by the TELEGRAPH.

This is what the Telegraph advises its readers to do in the month of ...

"MAY

Commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Dam Busters raid by following in the footsteps of 617 Squadron, from its Lincolnshire base to the Ruhr Valley dams it successfully destroyed. Visit Derwent Dam in Derbyshire where the Second World War heroes trained, see their hanger at RAF Scampton and have lunch in the former officers’ mess at Woodhall Spa, now the Petwood Hotel, which is filled with memorabilia from the raid.

Head south to the RAF Museum in Hendon to see a mighty Lancaster bomber, before crossing the Channel to France. After a visit to war cemeteries at Rhineberg and Reichswald Forest, where some of the officers are buried, a full day is spent visiting the three dams - Möhne, Eder and Sorpe - which the airmen destroyed using the famous bouncing bombs. "

I April, it's Tokio for the cherry blossom, and in June St Petersburg (Russia) for "the White Nights, when the sun never completely sets", btw.

>BTW Forgot to say that if the Polish and Czech 'national electorates' were consulted about joining the €, then the common currency would be rejected.
But they won't be, so it will be adopted.
I'd drop it. As you say, "it's pretty basic stuff".<

Before you drop it.
That's a real problem now in Poland. Poles were already asked about joing the the EZ and they've said yes. But in the meantime ir turned out that the EZ heavily mismanages the crisis, and what is more that the ways of accepting countries to EZ even before the crisis were untransparent. In effect only some 30% of Poles support our membership in the EZ. I don't know what will happen, certainly if EZ is not stabilized: compromise is being reached between the Norther EZ which wants South to pay with austerity and the Southern EZ which wants North to pay, it will be rather hard to expext Poland joining the EZ.

>Birtnick: “'genious' EU” progressive program to destroy democracy has its supporters<
Indeed, it seems that the programme to destroy democracy ;) has a strong support in the US as well.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/world/europe/state-dept-official-sugge...
I am afraid your fate is doomed, Birtnick. I almost feel for you. But don't despair, please. You will get used to living in our merry catlic-fascist-communist botland. We do have some nice traits, you will yet find out. And just imagine, Britain's noble sacrifice - are you planning to turn Catholic or what? - to stay in the EU - since now it is settled - makes us so happy! So much funds, so much freeloading, doing nothing!
And so much more stabile genious structure of EU.
With love
F. :-b

No, I think the people behind Obama realise that it is a matter for Britain to decide. They also must have seen that any coercion from their side of the atlantic has already met a very harsh press reception.
But don't worry, Brussels will ramp up the scare stories and alienate the British even further:)

Actually, judging by the national antipathy to your "EU", you ought to be very pleased to get rid of us:)

--

Topic.

The point of departure as far as I am concerned was someone's suggestion that the relations between Český Těšín and Ćeszyn would be improved somehow by the imposition of an extra alien, incompetent, unaccountable and costly layer of government. Consider the disaster-potential of ideologically-driven committees sitting in Brussels containing French, Belgian or Irish etc. maybe including a few token but equally ideologically-driven Czech or Pole functionaries suddenly becoming “experts” on Ćeszyn/Český Těšín (or e.g. Frisia-D/Frisia-NL) relations on matters of administration and policy, by legislating/meddling in such localities for the sake of welding it to *their* program?
The "EU" certainly can imagine it though, with the unrepresented taxpayer having to pay for yet another farcical extra layer of bureaucracy, although you'd have thought that central/eastern Europe in particular would have learned its lessons about meddlesome, remote, alien authorities. The respective local governments are all that were ever needed: most problems of your region stemmed from outside interference. So let’s see what Brussels can do for you:)
A truly (i.e.non-eurobotic like North America) European free trade area with open borders can only be to the good, as opposed to the anti-democratic, navel-gazing strictures of a political customs union à la “EU” whose only objective is to seize powers at every opportunity in every counterproductive, economy-crippling way imaginable through more asinine directives, which is anathema to today’s world when the regions need maximum flexibility to deal with the dynamics of global economies.

It was called the "Liberum Veto" in Polish history and it blocked decision-making in the country for nearly two centuries.
No, I refuse to accept that one country out of 27 (as of July this year, 28) should have the right to block the forward integration of the continent.

"No, I refuse to accept that one country out of 27 (as of July this year, 28) should have the right to block the forward integration of the continent".

Well, we know what the result of that will be, don't we, Joe?

Mayhem.

Countries like Germany and Italy, if in a minority, will just go their own sweet way, Germany if necessary falling back on its sacrosanct Karlsruhe court, while Italy will just ignore the majority decision anyway, just as it does most EU laws.

What you're saying is that Poles at first thought the euro might be a good idea, then they saw that they were doing rather well outside the EZ, while certain other EZ members were suffering intolerable austerity measures which everybody is now denouncing.( e.g. the Portuguese President)

My own view is that Poland will probably join the €, but only under coercion.

I had a good laugh reading about this once-in-a-lifetime outing, even though it could have been my great-granny and not yours who had to do her nightly knitting in the dark after the "dam(n) busters" hit.

You will find Der Speigel usually directly beside The Ecomommunist in the magazine shelf at the entrance of Ned Flanders' Leftorium shop. That's where Emma buys it - every Monday, along with a copy of the Neue Spezial.

"The point of departure as far as I am concerned was someone's suggestion that the relations between Český Těšín and Ćeszyn would be improved somehow by the imposition of an extra alien, incompetent, unaccountable and costly layer of government"

That's bad understanding of my words - this should not be additional layer but the existing layer should be unified or made fully compatible. Many steps have already been done but they are half-baked and are thus not efficient (and sometimes are unfair) - e.g. healthcare (insurance card is European-wide, yet the systems are not unified), registries (there's a free movement of people but registries are still national, maybe except Schenghen Information System), security (criminals can freely move but police still work in national regime and possible cooperation is rather ad-hoc), etc. This inconsistencies cause many conflicts.

In addition to Ćeszyn/Český Těšín and Frisia-D/Frisia-NL, there are dozens of such double-towns. An interesting case is Görlitz (DE) /Zgorzelec (PL) as the Saxon part of the town provides direct incentives (cheaper rent for town-owned apartments, free public transport, etc.) to Poles in order to move to the German part because many of the original inhabitants have left for old German lands. So there are common cases where people can live on a territory of a different state than is their nationality and where they have jobs, even though it's hardly imaginable for islanders with shore borders.

>It was called the "Liberum Veto" in Polish history and it blocked decision-making in the country for nearly two centuries.<

Point of minor importance here, but your parallel is not correct. I am not sure if you are joking/provoking as you did with the 'Polish camps'. Then your intention was obvious, now it isn't.

Liberum veto was a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's political system, which for 250 years served very well as a protection against autocratic inclinations of the monarch. In effect, in Polish reality the king was an equivalent of the president of e.g. USA. He was elected by the citizens, Noblemen, or 'haves', if you will, and controlled by them.
What you refer to - blocking the decision-making happened at the end and was inspired on the one hand by bribing the foolish and the weak by the neighbouring absolutists powers,on the other by the Noblemen growing excessively pacifistic and too-self-assured about the greatness of the federal state they have created. Response to the the widening misuse of liberum veto was an introduction of 'confedarate Sejm', which could not be liberumvetoed under Polish law. Overall, in the the period of liberum veto some 70-75% agreed laws were voted in, unanimously!, the remaining percentage vetoed. Compare that to modern parliaments in some countries.

Generally, liberum veto was a great achievement and and a great leap forward in the evolution of political systems, and Polish Noblemen democracy was the most democratic system in Europe when it existed.

From my point of observation it looks like that- we are some 60%pro-EU and 30%-EZskeptic. It means that a major part of EZ-skeptic (those who are at the same time pro-EU) suffer from ambitendency ('schizofrenia' in popular language :)
EU "is" EZ, and the only way to keep us all indifferent to meddling. I guess you've heard the latest story about IMF's mistakes.
So the question is if government will find a way to cure that schizophrenia, as it does nothing in that matter, but I heard an information action is planned. With gov's inaction, EZ mismanagement of the crisis, the stage belongs to total critics of European unity.

I do not mind reading about personal experiences of Slovaks in Prague in the 1980s. I remember not being served in a Slovak pub while skiing in Slovakia with my Czech friends in the 1980s because we were Czechs. We felt as second class citizens too but we considered that to be a matter of personal stupidity on the part of the bar tender. Still, I would expect the Economist to provide a more balanced view and, at least, to mention that Slovaks were certainly not systematically treated as second class citizens in the former Czechoslovakia. Otherwise, there would not be a Slovak president of Czechoslovakia in its last 20 years and the Communist Party leadership would not be controlled by Slovaks in the highest positions (including the general Party secretary) in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Gustav Husak and Vasil Bilak.

Not to mention economic transfers from Czech part to Slovak part of the Republic which continued more or less uncessantly (with the exception of the Slovak "independence" in course of WWII) from 1818 to 1992.

Congratulations from Krakow! According to the pools, for the Poles, the Slovaks are most sympathetic nation. It is interesting to see, especially in the northern part of Slovakia, and Southern Poland how the traditional ties with Czeches are more loose and the ties with Poland are stronger. (nothing against Czechs).

I agree, but I don't understand, why Czechs are as "sympathetic" as Slovaks and Belarussians, who partly can be called our "brothers" (Kościuszko, Moniuszko and many other "Poles" were in fact of Belarussian origin)are not. The same with Ukrainians. I can write many bad words about Czechs and Slovaks, but I have respect for them as our neighbours. In my private opinion, Slovaks, Belarussians and Ukrainians ( except of nationalists or "Russian agents")should be treated in the same, positive, way.

Didomyk, of course I meant the post half-jokingly because its history that has little significance today. Nevertheless, what is written there is truth - if you don't rely on Wiki, you can read about Karol Sidor and the events in late 1930th from other sources, of course - for example this article in Slovak (sorry, you have to use google translate again):

Basically, Polish foreign minister Józef Beck had a vision of creating big CE federation dominated by Poland (so called Międzymorze) and some of the Slovak nationalists played a role of "useful idiots" in this game because they didn't realize that he never really cared about Slovakia (he in fact wanted to restore "good old" Polish-Hungarian neighbourliness).
But these nationalists felt happy that they were awarded Polonia Restituta and that this afford helped them against "the Czechz"...

Tomas
Let me assure you that I am not inclined to whitewash any historical facts but wiki is NOT a reputable book on complex events in international history. I know its tempting to use Wiki because its so readily available but surely you know that professional historians must defend their hard won reputations, a task not required from unknown wiki 'editors'. As you know, Wiki can be and is being 'edited' by almost anybody. It is important to look critically on sources quoted and how objective any comments appear to be. It is also essential to give other interested and competent contributors time to submit their 'edits' and any comments they may have.
As to your other comment about Polish idea of "Miedzymorze" it was just one of Beck's several fantasies that led to the collapse of the Polish state.

Hello Didomyk and Tomas Marny!
Hello friends!
Happy New Year 2013!
What a nice introduction to a brand new year on TE to see Czech and Ukrainian nationals in so great an agreement :)
However if you don't mind: Międzymorze was not Beck's idea but good old Piłsudski's, whom - I imagine- you both love as much :))
And the idea was born BEFORE the outbreak of the war (WWI, let me add... just in case). It had rather little to do directly with Slovakia, or 'reintroducing Polish-Hungarian border'. The whole idea evolved around making all of Central Europe impermeable to Russian and/or German domination. Central Europe ment as LT, LV, EST, BYE, UKR, CzechoSLOVAKIA, HU, RO, YU, FIN, PL.
The idea of course failed, and I would say because of exactly the same sentiments which both my pleno titulo interlocutors' display in 21 century...
So let us see what was the outcome of the failed Międzymorze idea:
20 years later ALL countries that were to be included in a federation fell prey into the hands of either Russia or Third Reich.
It seems that some minds 80 years later still didn't learn the lesson and prefer to toot their own horn...

Didomyk, although I'm not a historian, I, of course, derive my knowledge of history from more reliable sources - specifically the role of Karol Sidor was mentioned in a book by a fairly renowned Czech military historian Karel Richter (some of his monographs here) that I have read recently. But these sources are not available for online free reading and thus I referred to a concise basic overview of facts on Wiki for readers who don't know anything at all about this events.

As for Wiki in general: You're right that it cannot replace deep thematic monographs by renowned authors. But I'm generally not that skeptic to the open source communitarian efforts like Wiki - the fact that it can be edited by everyone means that somebody can write a nonsense but also somebody else can immediately dispute/correct it. So it's under much more transparent supervision and we all know that especially history books reflect subjective views and preferences of authors fairly often - I don't mean that they would lie but rather compose the narrative from selected facts that support their own views and omit facts that do not fit their scenarios. And that's exactly what open collaborative effort can suppress as people with different views can supervise and edit it. But it would be great if the authors could be tracked and pilloried if they write clearly refutable data...

Well, it's funny that we started with historical excursion - I originally wanted to say hello to commentators in the Charlemagne blog with recommendation not to take their financial disputes so seriously and take time for reading a book How Much Is Enough but I guess it wouldn't help anyway ;-)

As for the ideas of the CE union: I'm afraid that even if it had been introduced bona fide to prevent hegemony of USSR and united Germany, the trouble is that Poland would have been too big a partner in such a union too and would have sooner or later become hegemonic leader using the union to pursuing her own interests. It's nothing specifically against Poland but it is an observable rule of thumb valid since earliest similar effort in European context - the Delian League that Athens gathered officially in order to protect small Greek city states from Persians. So there was really enough time to learn ;-)) ... And last similar failed union was Yugoslavia where the other nations felt dominated by Serbia.

So we can conclude that to have balanced powers is important for every union - even today for EU. That's why I'm quite worried about recent trends of avoiding EC (although Birtnick would say unelected - but composed of representatives of individual nations on parity basis) and other EU institutions in favour of politics of Germany (or German-French deals) even though they may have a honestly positive motivation of economic stabilization on the continent. But it may become seed of future disputes and conflicts in EU in the long term...

Happy New Year to you too, Forlana !
I am not sure how far do we want to digres from the main topic of Slovakia but your comments about Jozef Beck and Miedzymorze clearly invite a response.
First, Col. Jozef Beck was only 38 when he was appointed Poland's minister of Foreign Affairs in order to pursue much tougher policy line then his predecessor August Zaleski. Beck always closely identified with Pilsudski having served as Marshal's military attache in Paris and later as 'chief' of Marshal's cabinet. He must have received close guidance from his autocratic 'bos' on foreign policy priorities being expected to implement Poland's 'tougher' policy in European affairs including demanding to be consulted as equal. Several examples will illustrate Beck's policy "achievements": First, Joseph Goebbels' visit to Warsaw in 1934 was followed by Herman Goering's in 1935, followed by German-Polish non-agression pact same year. Then it was Beck's formal announcement to the League of Nations in Sept. 1934 of unilateral refusal of "all cooperation with the internationl organisations in the matter of supervision of the application by Poland of the system of minority protection". That decision provided ground for protests by Poland's neighbours. Such unilateral abrogation set a convenient example for other nations, including Germany, to abrogate their international treaties and contributed significantly to the weakening of the League authority. For whatever reasons, apparently Beck's personal reputation in Western European capitals, such as Paris, Rome, Prague, etc. left a lot to be desired.

One could go on quoting examples of Beck's "achievements" such as a total collapse of French minister's Barthou's idea of 'Eastern Pact of Mutual Guarantees', in part because Beck's narrowminded policy principles would have precluded Poland's guarantee of the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. The only ally Poland was left with in Eastern Europe was Rumania. That's where Beck ended up in Sept. 1939.
So, Forlana, given these realities during Beck's term in office in the late 1930s, how could anyone even talk about a failed Miedzymorze idea under Polish leadership ?

I wanted to add that I read with interest your link to the Slovak article http://www.kultura-fb.sk/new/old/stare/poliaci-8.htm
It just goes on to prove that if you know two Slavic lanuages you can understand the third one and the fourth. Of ocurse, google helps !

Thanks to your reference, to my surprise I discovered that Karel Richter has also written a book "Osudový omyl generála Vlasova". Have you read it ?

I have read several books on this subject including "Peter J. Huxley-Blythe - Under the St. Andrew's Cross: Russian & Cossack Volunteers in World War II"
There were a couple of recent newspaper articles on this subject as well.

Tomas, yes historical 'discussions' have little sense, but you have this rare ability to link the history with present times. Which you did - as I did in my previous comment :) So in the end there's method in this madness, we can feel fully justified for plunging into quasi-historical conversation :)

We totally agree when you talk about the risk of imbalance in any international relationship. The disagreement of minor importance today is related with your assumption of bad faith on Piłsudski's part. I think we have discussed this long ago. I will just repeat the main thought of 'defence': Poland re-born after WWI in the minds of the then Poles had a geographical shape resembling the pre-partition one. So even if Didomyk plays his slightly-resembling-blinded-soviet-prosecutor-part of accusation - this fact won't change. And without that past image in Pole's minds - and resulting will to fight for it using very own precious blood - there'd be no free Poland at all - or it would at best have the size of Congress Poland/Королевство Польское when it was part of Russian empire or General Government/Generalgouvernement when it was part of German Empire 1939-1945.

As you are perfectly aware maintaining independence on the flatland having the size of a pea, an in-between the two grinding stones, is questionable. Piłsudski, as most of educated Poles of that time understood that almost instinctively. Both you and Didomyk, as representatives of nations very friendly to Poland of today, should rather congratulate Poles that they have succeeded post WWI :)))

Now, please imagine that this latter paragraph of mine was dedicated to the point of disagreement which at best has minor importance today. I am anxious where will I end when I start to address -

Point of major disagreement.
Just as you do, I too fundamentally dislike German-French deals overtaking the balance in EU. But those deals - bona fide deals as you say, I am not talking about the situation on Charlemagne blog where Germany haters spare with German chauvinists - those deals were evident prior to our (--> CZ/PL) getting into this train. We did it voluntarily, knowing the reality of EU and thus we should be prepared to act accordingly. Besides, without those 'deals' wothout this motor, excuse using the worn-out word, the EU wouldn't move at all!

Let me put it yet another way: the risk of imbalance in any international union is sometimes worth taking, worth living through (or in) if that union 'saves' from greater risks. This was basically Piłsudski's idea of Międzymorze but failed due to obvious reasons (no more-or-less equal partner as you point to, Tomas. Ukraine, fully emancipated, self-assured, and efficient economically Ukraine could be such partner).

And this is basically idea of European Union, with all imbalances and faults. In the reality of 21 century it makes us all - from the largest to the smaller European states - a grindstone in place of just a handful of grains to be milled.

Back to deals of the train-drivers :) Maybe some other time we can discuss about the role of Polish-Czech-German motor to replace the old one?

I would urge you to skip the 'haroshogo' version unless you plan on attracting attention of Russian bloggers like kuzmich !:)

Second, some readers may need your comparative maps of Poland to learn basic facts of political realities. Let me assure you, these maps don't tell me anything useful. Russian and German imperial ambitions to dominate Central and Eastern Europe have been known for centuries. Maybe you should have included a map showing Poland's territories all the way from the Baltic down to Smolensk, accross the Dnieper's Left Bank to the Black Sea coast ?

Third, let's recall that after estabishment of Keiserreich in 1871 the German term 'Mitteleuropa' evolved into a concept of German domination of Central Europe. The term became known for its pejorative connotations for many people who later became victims of German domination. I recommend, if you can find it, reading a book "Mitteleuropa" by Friedrich Neumann who presented a projection of a new economic and political order in which Germany was to play central role. It was conceived as an economic union based on grand division of labor with Germany being an industrial center and with the states on the perifery providing food and raw materials. Not surprisingly, there was a place in this 'Mitteleuropa' for Poland and for most Balkan states as well as for counntries like Dennmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. If that sounds similar, at least in some parts, to Hitler's concept of 'Gross Reich', its because Neumann's ideas appealed to many Germans particularly after 1918. That political concept was supported by German "Kulturraum' (cultural space) concept that included the Baltic coast, parts of Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and down the Danube valley to the Black Sea. It is rather safe to assume that some Polish political thinkers of the day, being very much familiar with German 'Kulturraum' concept and the 'Mitteleuropa' plan, conceived their own version of 'Miedzymorze' with Poland at the centre. Political ambitions are one thing, realities are another. Let's hope the errors of the past will not be repeated.

My point was that the geopolitical situation after WW1 (and before) was not ready for truly multi-national union because politicians in all the countries were thinking primarily about their own national situation and interest and didn't have much empathy for the needs of others. You have admitted it when you said that Piłsudski was thinking about best solutions for Poland, but as Didomyk mentioned, there was a time where the Polish polticians thought that the best solution for Poland was agreements with Germany. The whole situation is best viewed on the situation of national minorities that were used as tools for maximizing national territory but their own interest was not taken care for (even Sudeten Germans were upset when they were included into the "Reich" after 1938, because they lost their identity and self-governance (e.g. own political parties) completely).

There has been great progress since those times, but still politicians of national states are there to defend primarily interests of national states - even though German politicians are most European-wise (probably as they know that last time they were nationalistic, it ended catastrophically) but still the politicians were elected in national elections and have to take care about electorate moods in their home country. On the other hand, members of EC don't have to care about national electorate and their role requires to consider interests of citizens of all the Union. Maybe those less professional still tend to prefer interests of their own nationality, I guess it's only minority of them (e.g. I haven't noticed that Mr. Barroso would somehow prefer Portugal, which he surely did when he was Portuguese PM.

This is why I'm skeptical that politicians elected into national assemblies by national voters can be true defenders of the whole union.

But, of course, it does not mean that the role national and regional politicians would not be important anymore. CE countries have a great goal to remedy the bad relationships from the past - and it should again start with building mutual trust, good-neighbourliness and active regional cooperation so that the administrative and mental "cuts" on national borders were not sharp (as there are no military border barriers anymore). This is where EU can help in longer prospect by harmonizing (or uniting) the institutional "service layer" that allow common people function in everyday life - including various registers, social welfare system, etc. so that citizens in e.g. Český Těšín and Ćeszyn didn't fell as in different worlds if they are separated only by a small river. And there are still many pressing issues that should be dealt with on the national levels - e.g. criminality and security, food and alcohol quality controls, etc. So national and regional politicians have plenty of tasks, I'm afraid ;-)

The motive behind the article appears to be to refresh readers' memories that back in 1942-43 the so-called 'Smolensk declaration' could have presented an alternative for the Russians instead of fighting and dying for Stalin's regime. Let me make it clear that in my view (a) that alternative was way too late; (b) there was no basis to have any confidence at all in the Russian group that composed the 'Smolensk declaration' and had it distributed by German planes in a limited area of the Eastern front; and (c) it is now well known that the mobilisation and training of what became known as Vlasov's ROA (Russian Liberation Army) had been opposed by Hitler and his German High Command untill it became obvious that their Reich faced a disaster. Nevertheless, the Vlasov episode presents a useful lesson in how political objectives need to be synchronised with military strategies. Finally, the Vlasov episode is relevant to Czechoslovakia as it was in the last weeks of the war in Prague that one of Vlasov's divisions turned their guns against German SS units.

Hi again,
Tomas, of course you are right that the geopolitical situation before/after WW1 was not ready for truly multi-national union. That is why Międzymorze concept was about a FEDERATION. In light of what happened in the following years - when all countries that were to be included into the Międzymorze federation, by force or by surrender became subdued to either Russia or Germany - both totalitarian, I even today think that it was extremely short-sighted to decline such a federation, unless one equals federation under Polish aeagis, which would indeed be imbalanced due to - as you say - Poland's size, with totalitarian, murderous regimes of Russia and Germany of that time.
Piłsudski was thinking about best solutions for Poland, yes, and these best solutions came out to be a common protection against common enemies, which he has 'diagnosed' properly, though it was not so clear for the leaders of other countries/nations, as - for example, I wonder if you'd agree, for the Czechs, who 'made friends' with Soviet Russia.
What Didomyk mentiones is a digression to a digression - "there was a time where the Polish polticians thought that the best solution for Poland was agreements with Germany" - (did you really mention that, Didomyk?) is of course correct, but it happened at least 15 years later, after Międzymorze concept failed and after France declined pre-emptively attack Hilter's regime before Germany rearms herself to the full extent. Only then Poland signed a non-agression agreement with Germany. And of course also today Polish polticians think that the best solution for Poland are agreements with Germany :)
Finally, a great agreement re: EC members shouldn't care about national electorates, let me add: especially at the cost of of the whole union. But of course their local upbringing, sensitivities, even primary, local education, does have an effect on them. Otherwise it would be really so easy.

The MIEDZYMORZE project was certainly a great idea from a Polish perspective and the perspective of MOST (but not all) of the "intermarum" states in between Germany and Russia, but it never materialized for the following reasons:

- most of its projected members had border conflicts with each other;

- more importantly, not all had the same security concerns:

The Balkan countries e.g. had little reason to be concerned about Germany, and only Romania about Russia; Finland, Estonia, Latvia saw Germany as potential ally, while the CSSR, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria had the same feelings about Russia – and none of these positions was fully compatible with e. g. Poland's security interests.

In 20/20 hindsight (aggression by Germany and Soviet Union during WW2) these conflicts appear minor and everybody against closer cooperation of the states that ultimately fell victim to the aggressors "extremely short-sighted" (Forlana), but the situation looked different in 1920, obviously.

In my earlier post I have referred to a collapse of French minister's Barthou's idea of 'Eastern Pact of Mutual Guarantees', largely because of Beck's narrowminded policy that apriori precluded Poland's guarantee of the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. There were, of course, substantive differences with Poland's "MIEDZYMORZE" project, but surely no Central European government was blind to Poland's Colonel Beck's restless and aggressive approach to diplomacy. He often overplayed his hand ignoring the reality that Poland of the day could not be classified as a 'Great Power'. It's useful to recall that in 1935 Colonel Beck visited Berlin twice, the second time for an extended meeting with Hitler himself. Let's also recall that, at that time, the issue of remilitarisation of Rheinland, contrary to the Locarno pact, was then high on Hitler's agenda.
When in March 1936 Hitler sent his troops into Rheinland, thus unilaterally abrogating the Locarno pact, the French, being totally unprepared for a military conflict, did practically nothing. But Colonel Beck was caught in his own diplomatic mousetrap. On the one hand he knew that, in the event of a conflict, Poland had Treaty obligations to France, while on the other hand he also knew that his country was bound by the 1934 Declaration of Nonagression with Germany. Thus Beck's unsolicited message of support for the French was not only a serious blunder that caused a shock in many capitals, but a move that could have led to serious consequences. Nevertheless, over the next couple of years Beck kept visiting Berlin giving reassurances about Polish-French and Polish-German relations while Nazi officials kept visiting Warsaw. But Beck did not foresee that the 'business as usual' relations will not last long. But that's another story.

Didomyk - yes, your right. The annotation of the Richter's book suggests that the political mistake that Vlasov may had made was that he didn't "sell" his grounds and goals to the Western allies. I don't know the Richter's reasoning, but I'm afraid that the West needed alliance with official USSR representatives to defeat Hitler and couldn't at the same time cooperate with rebels. Anyway, Vlasov role in the early stages of Prague Uprising is mentioned in most Czech history textbooks for school, that's why the name of general Vlasov is widely known among Czech citizens.

I have read your article with the GoogleTranslate help (I learned Russian for two years long ago but focusing on decoding Cyrillic letters distracts me from the meaning the texts ;-)). I have one question not directly related to the military issue: the text mentions that one of the Vlasov's motivation for fighting against his country was that the communist rule caused disaster in society and economy - in particular agriculture.

What do you think were the key reasons of failure of the collectivization of agriculture in Russia and Ukraine (where it later lead to the well-know "holodomor"). Would it be possible to do it anyhow successfully?

My point is that in Czechoslovakia, the collectivization took place after 1948. And although it was one of the most problematic point of early communist processes, it didn't result in any disaster. Most farmers (or "kulaks" as was adopted from Russian), of course, opposed entering agricultural union (JZD or "kolchoz" in Russian) or handing their farm, but the communist used psychological tricks rather than brute force - they offered leading functions in the agricultural unions to some of them, others put into persuading pressure. Those, who didn't give in were given very high quotas of agricultural that they had to hand. And when they didn't fulfill it, they were blamed to sabotage socialistic economy and were pilloried by other villagers - and especially those that gave in earlier became strong opponents of those who opposed entering union longer because they didn't like that somebody was braver than them. So in the end, all either gave in or left the farm and came to industry. So even though expertise of some professional farmers was wasted, it was replaced by use of mechanization that was more efficient on larger fields. That's why collectivized agriculture in communist Czechoslovakia could not be considered as most problematic issue, that's why I'd like to know why it failed in USSR.

And BTW, an interesting fact is that in Poland farmers avoided collectivization during communism, but today the farmers form unions on a voluntary basis for business reasons - they can trade on common European markets but must be big enough to be able to negotiate and guarantee supplies to international customers...

I have to agree with Josh that relationships of countries in CE were very bad. And for example Czechoslovakia had numerous minorities. Do you think that especially Sudeten Germans (who had political representation in the country's parliament) would let it unnoticed if Czechoslovakia became part of a union against Germany. See my reply to Josh below...

As for EC: yes, my point is that sometimes maximizing benefits of all members means that individual's member benefits are in short term not maximized (of course, it cannot be permanent or long term because it may lead to frustration). But it's a task that can be hardly asked of national politicians that are accountable to local electorate only...

I would add that it was not only about interest of countries but of individual groups within a single country. There was still strong fight for the arrangement of CE.

For example, SdP accepted only annexation of Czech lands to Germany and Slovakia becoming German protectorate. See their telling document from 1938, so called Grundplanung O.A. (you can click the original manuscripts in German)

On the other hand, there were communists who wanted closer relationships with USSR and intellectuals who relied (including Beneš) who relied on Western Europe (especially France), which was official state doctrine.

So I can't even imagine that there could be agreement about a complex CE federation.

It's daring to say it but maybe the region needed the wild events of the last two quarters of the 20th century to realize that cooperation can bring more benefits than fierce competition...

I have no idea what Richter is trying to say in his book but there are two different issues here. One relates to how the Germans could have (or should have?)used anti-communist Russian and non-Russian emigres (residing in Paris, Rome, Belgrade, and elsewhere) to mobilise anti-Kremnlin forces in order to defeat Stalin. They failed 100% because of narrow-minded Nazi mentality and stupid racial superiority, even though some understood that anti-communist leaders like Vlasov and Co. could have been used to their advantage. But no far-reaching concept of a post-war Europe could possibly be acceptable to people who saw themselves as a master-race, all others as 'unterrmensche'.

The other issue relates to the Western powers, mainly the Brits under Churchill and the Yanks under Roosevelt and their close advisors who, having partnered with Stalin to defeat Hitler, completely ignored fundamental concepts of freedom and democracy they supposedly stood for. Not only they made significant territorial concessions to Stalin, and not only agreed to the post-war 'spheres of influence' (read communist Central Europe) but accepted Moscow's demands to abandon all anti-communist former political leaders who happened to be in Western Europe sending back to the USSR all former Soviet citizens (and many who were not). That's how tens of thousands of former POWs and Ostarbeiters were sent back, often against their will,straight into Soviet NKVD - SMERSH operated 'transit camps' to be screened and re-designated as 'trustworthy' or as "unreliable', as 'collaborators' or charged with 'treason against the Motherland'. The Soviet military intelligence knew very well the whereabouts not only of Vlasov and his top commanders but also of tens of thousands of Kuban and Don Cossaks who formed auxilliary regiments under German command. They surrendered to the British in Austria having been given assurances that they will not be handed over to the Soviet SMERSH ( in Russian = 'death to spies'). However, in their political stupidity the British High Command violated their own promises sending thousands of Cossaks, in some cases with families, into the waiting trucks driven by the Soviet penal NKVD detachments. Thus neither Vlassov, who was wanted by Stalin himself, nor any of the former higher ranking Soviet citizens, had any chance to formulate their proposals to the Allies, let alone try to persuade largely ignorant US and British personnel that they had something to offer. By contrast, it is well known that some rather high ranking former Nazi functionnaires (or scientists) were able to sell their services to the British and US intelligance and/or military in exchange for guaranteed personal safety and freedom. The wartime and post-war hypocricy and double-deals must have reached record proportions.

1) Obviously, the internal make-up of Central and Eastern European states had a large role to play in the difficulties of making alliances - and that relates to the fact that all of these countries were new or new in shape, and thus not yet "settled" internally IMO.
In the case of the CSR, Hitler obviously exploited those internal frictions by using the Sudetengermans as fifth column.

2) "It's daring to say it but maybe the region needed the wild events of the last two quarters of the 20th century to realize that cooperation can bring more benefits than fierce competition..."

- I couldn't agree more. It's certainly true for Germany. My German grandfather (drafted into the Wehrmacht at age 18 and sent straight to the Russian front) always used to say that in a way it was good that Stauffenberg etc. didn't succeed in killing Hitler and overthrowing the regime, because otherwise people would have whitewashed Hitler later, and blamed the inevitable defeat on the resistance movement.

P.S.: Congrats for succesfully (and literally) "connecting the DOTS", so to speak;-). Old habits die hard.

To be perfectly honest with you, I do not know enough about Beck's foreign policy to judge.

But I do know that Hitler reportedly considered the Rhineland coup his biggest gamble prior to atatcking the Soviet Union in 1941, and that he would have called the troops home if he'd encountered resistance.

With German rearmament picking up full speed only after the Rhineland coup, chances a more forceful French (and British, Polish) intervention could have avoided worse.

My understanding is Beck sought an escape from the unfortunate position of Poland between two powers that held grudges against it for having taken over parts of their territory after WW1. I'm not sure that feat could have been achieved at all, frankly.

I am afraid the major flaw in our exchange is incorrectable: I am taking about the first act of the drama, while you are talking about the last one, when the drama became a tragedy, though you are - senslessly (sorreeee!) using the scenography from the first act.

But I will try again,

1. Międzymorze idea was a daughter of Piłsudski's mind, which was born prior to WWI. Not Beck's and not in the 1930-ties.

2A. Quality of that idea is in the long-sight: it correctly anticipated agression of Germany and Russia. Both had an occasion to 'get used to' ruling in our lands- partly because CE didn't cooperate. When we - somehow - did, we have ruled our lands and were a "Great Power" - though Ukraine was outrageously underrepresented and not enough honoured in her fully due distinctiveness, as were the Belarusins for instance.

The twenty years which followed the birth of Międzymorze idea confirmed that the road CE countries went led them to half a century-plus of captivity and a major economic delay with which we fight to this day. And that senseless road was petty tooting own horns and guarantees/cooperation from/with outside powers. Great Britain&France in case of Poland, Great Britain, France&Soviet Union in case of Czechoslovakia, Third Reich&Soviet Union in case of Ukraine, and so on.

2B. The fundamental fault of the idea was it's idealism - Piłsudski wrongly assumed that voluntary union based on cold, long-sight thinking was possible at that time. It wasn't. It became evident much later, post factum. Post horribilis factum all Europe understood that she needs unity to self-preserve herself and - due to German/Russian -inflicted ruin of the continent and due to unexpected globalization of advanced civilization of which she is the author - to defend herself from outsied powers' meddling.

3. The third act -1930ties, after Germans elected Nazi party into power was already a crisis situation, which Piłsudski's Międzymorze were to make impossible. In the thirties Beck - not just him, all Poland! - flounced like a fish taken out of water. But this is altogether another story. Which leads me to slightly saddening/amusing part - depending on the attitude:

4. Didomyk, maybe you don't realize it but mentioning hot spots of history ie. reclaiming Zaolzie in 1938 (sic!), or reclaiming Wilno in 1920, which - like here -don't have anything to do with Międzymorze idea and are rather a result of it's failure, so to say, mentioning them, mixing them in somehow whenever any form of unity of non-Russian (Soviet) Europe is on the table, is a well-know trick of old Soviet propaganda. Divide et impera. I am slightly astonished that such a brave fighter against anything Russian uses this trick :)

"..mentioning hot spots of history ie. reclaiming Zaolzie in 1938 (sic!), or reclaiming Wilno in 1920,......mixing them in somehow whenever any form of unity of non-Russian (Soviet) Europe is on the table, is a well-know trick of old Soviet propaganda. Divide et impera...."

Second, your term 'reclaiming' says it all. As we all know, many other lands had been 'reclaimed' by expansionists powers. Do you need examples how this was done ? Why was Poland's 'reclaiming' any different than, for example, Stalin's 'reclaiming'?

Third, you obviously know all about Russian tricks, - "a well-know trick of old Soviet propaganda" !! Looks like you are convinced that there must be somebody employed by the Kremlin monitoring whatever 'Didomyk' happens to say on any blog in order to use it as a well-known propaganda trick ! WOW ! Am I supposed to be impressed ?

Didomyk, you've forget to present me your view about reasons for failure of agricultural collectivization in the USSR. Was it due to naive approach, or was it intention to decimate village people who were generally more resistant to acceptance of the "new orders" or was it underestimated stubbornness of the farmers?

Was there a way to accomplish the transformation successfully or was it in your view principally doomed for failure?

Some historians have made the point that the Rhineland coup was Hitler's first real gamble. But then its for us to speculate only as to what Hitler's options were at that time.

The fact is that Poland's unilateral abrogation of its responsibilities to the League of Nations set a convenient example for Hitler's Germany how to abrogate 'inconvenient" international treaties. Just note how silent our Polish friends have remained on this striking example of Poland's international "cooperation" in mid 1930s.

Hi Didomyk,
of course you didn't directly mention reclaiming of Zaolzie and Wilno, I didn't say you did.

Nonetheless you did say that Poland's policy endangered territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. That is nonsense and the divide et impera trick I've mentioned - especially that we were discussing Międzymorze idea. Now you have added another 'argument':

>Didomyk: Why was Poland's 'reclaiming' [of Zaolzie and Wilno] any different than, for example, Stalin's 'reclaiming'?<

Sapienti sat :-)
I understand you stance in full now.

Though indeed, there's a difference: you didn't say at the end 'and then came the just Polish People's Republic, where proletarians and peasants rule, Poland grows in strength and people become affluent'.

No, you shouldn't be impressed, this was just a frank information how I see such argumentation You are playing into the hands of enemies of European unity in general and CEE unity specifically.

A pleasant and interesting debate between several intelligent people who write quite well in English.

I think the issues are relevant to today - if the old battles are not re-fought. Probably it would be a good idea to create a commission of historians from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary... and create a commonly-agreed-upon version of history to be taught in school textbooks - a version that would be compatible with pro-EU and peaceful ideas.
Such a strategy was adopted between Italy and Slovenia in the 90's - it took 15 years to reach an agreement, but in the end the process was very helpful toward bettering diplomatic relations.

Finally, a "criticism" of Polish foreign policy today: Pilsudski's old idea of Polish leadership in Central Europe was definitely valid - in my experience, the Romanians and Bulgarians are not opposed and are quite pro-Polish, while the Czechs are the most stand-offish... but Poland has missed a very important opportunity by not being included in the G20. This was a major blunder of the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw - regardless of exactly WHO was to blame.
Such membership would have given Central Europe at least one voice within the international economic grouping - not a minor point really.

Your question about Soviet collectivisation in the 1930s is far too complex to be dealt with in a brief comment. And furthermore, it should never be confused with the issue of agricultural efficiency that has been used as a favoured justification by the Soviet perpetrators of mass crimes. Very, very briefly, Soviet method of enforcing collectivisation in the 1930s was primarily a policy of subjugating millions by confiscating grain, livestock and imposing heavy penalties for hiding any food supplies essential for survival. In a predominantly agricultural economies of Ukraine, the Don and Kuban regions of Russia, parts of Kazakhstan these measures spelled starvation followed by deaths of millions of peasants. Stalin's Politbureau assigned responsibility for implementation of collectivisation to Stalin's trusted partner-in-crime Lazar Kaganovich who, assisted by Vyacheslav Molotov (who later became 'famous' for his pact with Ribbentrop) personally supervised imprisonment and deportation of 'kulaks' unwilling to part with their land and essential means of survival. The kolkhoses and sovkhoses became gradually viable mailnly because of (a) the use of slave labor paid largely in kind (b) no alternative sources of food for the masses (c) setting up production quotas for each kolkhose with severe penalties for failures (d) diverting grain harvests to increase export earnings that were invested into industrialisation and militarisation. Comparisons of both the scale of collectivisation, the methods used and the 1930s conditions in the Soviet Union with the post-war situation in Czechoslovakia, Poland or East Germany is clearly inappropriate.

Here is a footnote about Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin's close associates and relatives (see below).

It is not widely known that, in January 2010, the Kyiv Court of Appeals posthumously found Lazar Kaganovich, along with several other former Soviet leaders, guilty of genocide against Ukrainians during the catastrophic famine Holodomor. Lazar Kaganovich, a Russified Jew, and several other Soviet leaders were found guilty as criminals. Ukraine’s Security Service has assembled and submitted all materials consisting of over 250 volumes, incl. interviews with witnesses and expert analysis of Institutes of National Academies of Sciences, to the Prosecutor General as clear evidence of Soviet genocide in the 1930s Ukraine.
Lazar Kaganovich lived in peaceful retirement in Moscow where he died in 1991 without ever having to answer for his crimes.

In 1987, American journalist Stuart Kahan published a book entitled "The Wolf of the Kremlin: The First Biography of L.M. Kaganovich, the Soviet Union's Architect of Fear" (published by William Morrow & Co). In his book, Kahan revealed little known facts about Kaganovich's working relationship with Stalin and his activities during the Ukrainian famine. He also claimed to have interviewed Kaganovich personally, stating that Kaganovich admitted to being partially responsible for Stalin's death in 1953. A number of other facts were mentioned as well, including that Stalin married Kaganovich's sister and that Lazar Kaganovich's son Mikhail married Svetlana Dzhugashvili, daughter of Joseph Stalin on July 3, 1951.

1) Who will win?
2) Will CZ play a bigger role in the EU with anti-integrationist Klaus gone? I always thought CZ was punching below its weight class, given its economic leadership among the Central and Eastern European newcomers.
3) And what about the tattooed guy? LOL

Your "idea to create a commission of historians from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary... and create a commonly-agreed-upon version of history" may sound attractive to some of today's academics but its a non-starter if the hypothetical objective does not include historical relations with and between other countries such as Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey, Belorus, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. Irrespective of the present status of any one of these states in terms of their relationship to EU, their historical relationships were, and will always remain, indivisible part of the history of Europe. The present EU is broadly recognised as "work in process" and, let's say by the time today's youngsters graduate from universities, the concept of United Europe will have undergone far-reaching change.

Cool down, Forlana, your apparent objective of making "Didomyk" an enemy 'of European unity in general and CEE unity specifically' smells so much 'Bovine' it must be a product of excessive consumption of the real Polish "Wodka Wyborowa" ! Now, I understand, this has been a festive season and Forlana may have enjoyed good company... but there is a limit.

For all we know you may be dreaming about rejuvenated version of a Polish state as envisaged by Dmowski and his conservative friends who favoured re-establishment of the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1772. Keep dreaming, but don't foget we live in 2013 !!!

But I still wonder why the Soviet administration opted just for this fierce solution - was there any side goal in addition to the collectivization (e.g. genocide of conservative citizens hostile to communism)?

Do you think that the collectivization could be successfully accomplished in a more peaceful way without the drastic consequences and holodomor if different approach had been chosen or just the situation at that time didn't offer any other way to enforce it?

Ad 1) There are two populist candidates who will probably proceed to the second round: Zeman and Fischer. Count Schwarzenberg can do it only if the voters of "civic society" candidates would unite around a single candidate (see my previous answer). So I expect that one these three would win.

Ad 2) All of the realistic contenders are basically pro-European so there will not be delays with signing EU treaties anymore. But the main competence in negotiating EU issues belongs to the government and parliament. Therefore we can expect more active engagement in EU matters after next parliamentary elections in 2014 that is expected to be one by Social Democrats (non-communist leftists are, of course, more pro-European than rightist conservatives).

Ad 3) He's an artist (with some education in law), one of the candidates supported by the civic society - mainly students. But he was not engaged in politics before running the presidency so voters have realized during the campaign that he is there to jazz the election up rather than a serious contender.

No question that historic relations with the countries you mention are important.
My reason for not mentioning Ukraine was because, not being inside the EU, neither the need nor the potential for reaching an OFFICIAL, COMMON view of history is as strong.
For example, we outsiders tend to look at the Baltic Republics as a group. They themselves actually tend NOT to look at themselves as a group. Estonia looks to Helsinki - not Riga or Vilna. Lithuania looks to Poland and Russia, not to Tallinn. Riga tends to look to Germany, etc. etc.
But projects have been financed also by European money to produce historical books describing the history of the Baltic Republics that could be used in all three countries to reach a common version for schoolchildren that would avoid nationalistic quarrels among them.

Given that Czechs, Slovaks and Poles now share citizenship (i.e. Poles can move freely to Slovakia and work there - and even take up residence and vote in local, non-national elections if they so desire) there is a pressing need to arrive at a few commonly-agreed-upon versions of history.

Until such time as other countries join the EU, there is no authority for Brussels to tell governments what they should be teaching their citizens/schoolchildren.

Of course, Birtnick is going ape-crazy at the idea that Brussels should have anything to say about what the British government should teach their schoolchildren. But that is part of what is so annoying to us continentals: the UK has done very little to change its traditional, nationalist version of history to join Europe. That is the biggest reason why its adult citizens are so dead set against joining Europe- their heads are still filled with nationalist crap from the two world wars.
God forbid anyone in England should admit that the fire-bombing of Dresden was not a strategic or military necessity - and in fact a war crime. Nor do the war crimes of the other side justify one's own.

I guess we will have to disagree on the subject of " potential for reaching an OFFICIAL, COMMON view of history"
There is no such thing as "official" view of history except in autocratic states such as the USSR where every historic publication had to pass state censorship and authors were condemned for their 'lack of ideological maturity', etc.
Not long ago, under Medvedev as Russian president, a state 'Committee' was formed charged with the task of coming up with 'official' version of Russian history because of annoying disagreements how to interpret events and personalities of the Soviet era. But that sort of initiative cannot and should not be accepted in a free democracy where each and every historian is free to seek the truth about the past.
You are right that 'the UK has done very little to change its traditional, nationalist version of history to join Europe.'
But don't expect the Brits, long term colonial masters, to change for a long, long time given their pride in their BRITISH COMMONWEALTH. Their focus is and will remain on their BRITISH Crown (unless Charles takes over !). There is nothing comparable at this point in history, except (but only if you want to take it seriously) Putin's attempt to recreate a RUSSIAN 'Commonwealth' to be know as EURASIA ! Of course, a Russian Crown could be re-established if necessary by Vlad the Great himself.
For now, some of your examples are rather unlikely to offer ANY hope of common European history, - certainly not your example of Lithuania vs Poland and vs Russia. You must be kidding if you hope to see a 'common' historical view given the animosity related to Poland's takeover of Vilnus after WW1 and the Soviet takeover of all three Baltic states in 1940. And what about Poland's disputed claims to Western Ukraine and Western Belarus ? Or Romanian disputes with Hungary, or the issue of Moldova, or Transdnistria ? Nor should we forget the history of the Russian Kaliningrad which is only one part of the former East Prussia ! Try and see if any respectable living historian could sort out this mess created by over-ambitious politicians, - all of whom are now dead !

Didomyk, Didomyk... do you expect Polish husaria arrival and President Bronisław Komorowski hitting the Golden Gate of Kiev with a sword?
Didomyk, you position is now more clear than ever. Generally you are through the same process some Pole's, Czech's etc have been prior to joing the EU: anxiety towards EU/western neighbours' domination. It will most probably, and hopefully, pass :-)
Have fun and wsioho najkrashchoho!

Thank you Didomyk! Not bad :) I was afraid the next song you'd like to sing will be something along the lines of zdobywajmy sławę, wykosimy wszystkich Lachów aż po Warszawę... You must be extemely gentle person, though, it wasn't :) So, before the next round I will sing for you ej, ty Ojcze- Atamanie, Ukraina śpi w najlepsze, wiatr już ucichł na limanie i stanęła woda w Dnieprze.
A koń ledwie nogi wlecze, a człek żyje, a nie żyje....

Looks like you were a good scholar during Soviet times working on official history. Even today, I can’t condemn you for the 'lack of ideological maturity'. Feels good Soviet school in you inferences. Why not then to join Medvedev’s team. I believe you can make your invaluable contribution in writing history. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard that team is working on it. Maybe that’s why you are still posting to TE for free entertaining the audience here instead of doing it for some good fees.
If to speak about the most “democratic” country in the world like USA and knowledge of an average American in history, I believe then every one of them learned history from very independent sources and different history books. For instance, when asked where Iraq is, every single individual gives a different location and in Australia they say people speak Australian. Most don’t know when and from whom USA got its independence. You sure must give Americans a hand and give them few hints on history. And The Economist should write about Big Ben because some Americans believe it’s a name of horse.
And Kaliningrad, East Prussia Didomyk is the German pay for the devastation caused by the NAZI Germany during WW II. You forgot to mention for example Stalingrad that was completely destroyed and 900 days siege of Leningrad just to mention only a few. The Germans have to whistle for Kaliningrad and kiss it good-bye.

Every country has its "official" version of history - even if it is not obvious.

I think it's probably more important for the Baltic Republics to share a history - given their small size and need to cooperate - but even between Poland and Lithuania there is much common history and a need to arrive at common definitions.

I think Poland no longer has official claims to the Western Ukraine - and the EU is meant to guarantee minority rights in border areas.
Istria and Dalmatia are a small part of the world - and some 400,000 Italians were kicked out by Tito from lands Venice had governed for many centuries (AD 1203-1797) - but there are no longer any claims to those lands coming from Italy. And it was agreed by Slovenian and Italian historians that "genocide" was an improper term both for what Italians did to the Slovenians, and for the mass graves (foiba) Tito's soldiers dumped Italians into at the end of the war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovene_minority_in_Italy

I think the historical battles in Central Europe - so encouraged by Stalin and the Soviets for decades, can be mostly argued out and common versions can be found.

I must admit I quite like the "prince" - he's so much the Bohemia of old that it's hard not to feel intrigued by the idea he might make it. But then again, that's admittably a quite superficial reason for wanting to see someone win.

I am delighted to see you are well after long and obviously intensive New Year's celebrations. As you can see historical debates have continued and, if you read all contributions carefully, you will be aware that 'Didomyk' has been accused of siding with the Russians (!!!) by pointing out Poland's territorial "re-claming". I was expecting you to join in the debate in order to confirm your version of history. Glad to see you want to set the record straight about Russian "re-claiming". The question is which record ?
Since you have chosen to argue the case of Kaliningrad you need to shake hands with people like Forlana and come up with a mutually acceptable definition of the history of East Prussia. NOT my definition, YOUR historically defensible definition !

To repeat my statement, - here it is:
"Nor should we forget the history of the Russian Kaliningrad which is only one part of the former East Prussia !"
We are talking about how historians in a multinational Europe are supposed to discuss the history of that region, - not about battles of Stalingrad or of Kyiv, not even about the battle of Berlin !! The issue was and remains how people like you, kuzmich, and many others like Forlana and Milovan and the rest, could produce an acceptable "common" European version of history of the territory historically known as East Prussia ? Not Putin's view, not kuzmich's view and not Forlana's view, but a common European view !

I don't disagree with your criticism of the American deficit in teaching world history, but that is not the topic. Admittedly, I have not seen any recently approved history texbooks for Russian schools, or for that matter for German schools, but I would be ready to bet with you that Vlad Putin and Frau Merkel would find many points of historical disagreemdents.

In the end my challenge stands: "Try and see if any respectable living historian could sort out this mess created by over-ambitious politicians" !

Thanks for the reference by Loewen but he examined only twelve American textbooks for his first edition. The task of examining textbooks of 27 EU member countries plus at least ten other non-member countries is so much more complex and full of controversial traps ! And that would only be the first step, to be followed by the task to reach a consensus of some sort between historians of all those countries as to what should or should not be stated. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it should not be attempted but let us be realistic about the complexity of the task involved. Your example of 'genocide' is a good one in that similar debates of how to describe the man-made 1932-33 famine in Ukraine as Holodomor and how to assign resonsibility for it has become a hot topic over the past two decades. A similar dispute has been going on for decades about the Armenian genocide. There is no hope for reachning a consensus on responsibility for Stalin's mass deportation of the Baltic peoples in 1940-41 or the Crimean Tatars in 1944 and the Chechens and Ingushetians in 1943-44, no consensus for the 1947 mass deportations under the Polish-Soviet 'Akcija Visla', etc. etc. etc. Frankly, any 20th cent. event in Europe that has involved either the pre-1917 Russian Monarchy, or the Russian bolshevik revolution, or Russian role in the USSR right up to 1991, or the post-Soviet Russian Federation 1991-2013 is subject to a dispute of one sort or another. I am not inclined to be optimistic.

Yes, you make good points. Politicians and generals have left us with a lot of history to sort through...

But surely, it should not be impossible for Russians to admit that a great evil was done against the Baltic peoples, just as the latter can admit that Russians also suffered at the hands of the Communists?
I remember seeing a statue of Feliks Dzherzhinsky in Warsaw in the 80's and asking a friend: "With no statue of Stalin anywhere in Poland, why is this man's statue tolerated?" I got a shrug and a wry comment: "Well, in any case he was a great Polish patriot - having killed more Russians than any other Pole in history."

Actually, I have heard that Turkey and Armenia have formed a joint historical commission in the hopes of coming to an agreement. I think Armenian émigrés would never come to an agreement - but for various political reasons Armenians in Armenia would have an interest in coming to a compromise.

On the other hand, yes I agree with you: Moscow's actions over the last 100-200 years do not leave much room for defence. Probably, they should move the capital to another city.

In my view any balanced historical record would have to acknowldge the role of many people of different national origins in establishing and perpetrating one of the most inhumane regimes Europe has ever known. While the bloody Felix Dzherzhinsky was a Pole, his infamous successors in running the murderous Che-ka - GPU - NKVD - MVD machine were either Jewish or Russian, Georgian or Armenian, or just 'soviet' communists of some mixed racial origin. This offers another example of contradictory arguments being offered by contemporary authors with many Russians preferring to blame everything on Stalin as a Georgian, while some western authors regard the Polibureau membership of such leading communists as Trotsky, Litvinov, Yezhov, Kaganovich and many others simply as evidence of their ideological prominence unrelated to their national or racial origin. This line of highly questionable argument leads one to the conclusion that the Russians have yet to agree among themselves if the Soviet Union should be identified as one of historic forms of Russian statehood OR as a multinational Union of Socialist (i.e.communist) republics of which the Russian Federal Socialist republic was only one ! Since the USSR was THE ONLY legally and internationally recognised format of statehood for some 70 years, it follows that for 70 years there was NO RUSSIA as an independent state, one that would have had UN membership rights, that would have been entitled to send ambassadors to other countries, sign bilateral and multilaeral treaties, etc. etc. But try and convince the Russians that there was NO Russia and you put your life at risk !

A misconception often repeated in the West that confuses USSR with RUSSIA does nothing to change the legal international status of the UNION of SSR for some 70 years. Surely everybody knows that WWII ended with the Soviet Union (not RUSSIA) being one of four occupying powers of German Reich, that Gorbachev was the president of the USSR, not of Russia, and that the Russian Federation was granted UN membership only as the successor state and only after the 1991 dissolution of the USSR. As I said, historians have a difficult task to argue with the Russians that there was NO RUSSIAN state for 70 years!

Josh, yes, the finalists are a bit surprising but many people voted for count Schwarzenberg because they didn't want the long predicted Zeman-Fischer finals to happen - I personally chose this strategy too - I originally wanted to vote for Roithová who is in many aspects similar to Merkel in Germany (educated, long term Christian Democratic politician, currently in European politics as MEP) but I eventually opted for Schwarzenberg who had better chances to progress to the second round.

I will write a brief analysis of chances of the finalists under the official thread later...

There is a shadow of truth in the article. And as you can see to certain degree 1993 was a Birth of Nation Slovakia compared to what in Czech republic appears as prolonged Death of Country. It perhaps represents reality of 100 years of LIEs. The elite what missed their own calling to be Elite self-evident and productive on its own . 5th column for trends and void that is Sick man of Europe - the Czech republic

It's pity that this article was written by a whining nationalist, not an independent analyst who could assess evolution of Slovakia, especially in comparison to the other part of the former federation since it may be important for today's separatist territories like Catalonia or Scotland.

The complaints about "discrimination" and friend's friend's friend's first hand experience from 1984 are mere subjective. The hard facts are that Slovaks had more favourable representation than it would correspond to the population size at least since 1968: there was parity in federal government (plus president / PM parity) as well as one of the two chambers (Chamber of Nations) in federal parliament... But, today it's the same - people complain about "Brussels" despite the fact that representation of smaller countries is proportionally more favourable than the big ones (e.g. parity in EC).

The main observation about the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was premature - it didn't have any economical or political justification in early 1990th - it was motivated by personal power-hungriness of some individuals who took advantage of nationalism as the way to achieve this. The era is symbolized by so-called "hyphen wars" - i.e. Slovak federal MPs paralyzed federal institutions by demand of ditching the name "Czechoslovakia" and replacing it with "Czecho-Slovakia" and similar bizarre demands - this all at the time when all attention should have been focused on rigorous preparation of economic transformation. So it was clear that if somebody was seriously ready to ditch hard-earn brand of Czechoslovakia only to satisfy personal / national psyche, there was no other way than dissolving the federation. But since it was 11 years before EU accession and because both countries new that the economic connections were strong and neither country had any friends that would replace them, the national politicians basically copied many of the agreements from federal times - they called it "above standard relationships" and included aspects like free trade area or free university education to other country's citizens, etc.
Yet, despite this the development in 1990th was slower than it could be if both countries defended their interests together in federation (this was reflected by things like depreciation of especially Slovak currency or later acceptance of Slovakia in NATO).

The crucial change has come with the EU accession in 2004 that is something that Slovakia was able to capitalize on in a much better way than the Czech R. And at this point, the federation would have lost its purpose indeed because the EU framework replaces it to large extent but in a much larger playground (and thus less prone to suspicion of hegemony vs ungratefulness simply because the decisions are made by more constituents).

In this context, I can agree with Slovak PM who has recently said that the only thing that both countries have lost by being independent within EU is influence stemming from bigger size of population as 15-mio country would be considerable weight in both EU and CE, but 10- and 5- mio are average and bellow-average respectively. But otherwise there is no reason why there should be additional layer of federal institutions between national institutions and EU ones...

I particularly like the part on the "hard-earned brand of Czechoslovakia"... Indeed, the Czechs liked it so much that they have even kept its flag. Not even that symbolically this means that the Czechs consider themselves as the successor country, but this act was also in a direct breach of Czechoslovak constitution.
I would really wonder what for example the Scottish would say if after their separation the rest of the UK would keep the Union Jack (the blue color in Czechoslovak flag is linked to Slovakia similarly as it is linked to Scotland in Union Jack).

Yes, it would be interesting to see if the rest of the UK kept the Union Jack intact. But I'm afraid that Scotland would not vote for separation (well, unlike in Czechoslovakia, they at least have a chance to vote for it, not that several separatist nationalists unilaterally proclaim declaration of constitution and thus put their people and partners in federation are presented with a fait accompli.

Anyway, the brand is usually the name - if you ever travelled outside Slovakia, I guess you have met foreigners mentioning "Czechoslovakia" even 20 years after the federation had ceased to exist. And unfortunately, this couldn't be kept ;-)

In this sense, it was unfortunate that the country was named Czechoslovakia in 1918. It upset all the national minorities (and some of them were even more numerous than Slovaks) and decomposition of the country inevitably destroyed it. I guess that Valons and Flemmish were more foresighted when they called their federation in a neutral manner like "Belgium" ;-))

And the main reason for keeping the flag was that if you remove the blue color, you get Polish flag. And distinguishing flags only by a symbol is silly (indeed, telling difference of Slovak flag from Slovenian flag or even from Russian flag, especially when they hang on the pole and the sign is hard to see, is almost an impossible task).

The point about the Czechoslovak flag has nothing to do with the manner in which the countries are separated (whether referendum or parliament decision). The point is that if one country ceases to exist and it splits into two, none of these two countries should use the state symbols of the common country that ceased to exist. Because of the semantic nature of symbols, using one’s own state symbols and not someone else’s not only simply makes sense but it also shows respect for the other country and in the case of Czechoslovakia was also explicitly written in the constitution. So for the Czechs to take the Czechoslovak flag and declare it their own is mildly speaking arrogant as none of the above seems to have mattered to them.
I have used the Union Jack example not to hint that Scotland might get independent but to show an analogy which (if ever happens) will surely (at least in my view) not end up the same way as was the case for Czechoslovakia. Simply I just can’t imagine the rest of the UK to be that arrogant towards the Scottish and also am pretty sure that the Scottish would use legal action to ban this from happening (which Slovakia should have done).
The brand is not “usually the name” as you say. Just ask any company you like whether their brand is just the name or also the logo, the colors, the font, etc… All this is linked with the identity of whatever is represented by the brand (and for that matter so are the coats of arms on the flags of Slovakia or Slovenia which you find silly). When the Czechs decided to use the Czechoslovak flag, they have (again because of its semantic nature) actually declared that the legacy of the “Czechoslovak brand” lies with them, which, as already mentioned above, is a pretty arrogant gesture.
And yes, it is true that a few foreigners (if they actually have ever heard of Czechoslovakia in the first place) would only refer to Czechoslovakia and not the two countries that succeeded it. These people though usually also don’t have a clue where it is (or rather was) on a map, many times not even being sure if it is (was) in Europe. You can find ignorant people everywhere and that’s not surprising. But it seems to me that the confusion of a few ignorant foreigners is generally not the best guideline for making political decisions.

@ Tomas:
.
In case you read this, I'm curious whether you think Schwarzenberg destroyed his candidacy with his recent comment on Benes - and how you feel about it? (You can speak your mind;-).)
.
I'm not denying I agree with Schwarzenberg, but with BOTH parts of his statement (that is, I'm also against the restitution of property/right of return - let history be history). I would have advised him to put it less graphically, at least if he's serious about adding the Hradcany to his collection of castles.

“Czechs don’t understand what I say, but I understand what they say,”
i really wonder how can someone claims something like this, if they are not able to speak it doesn´t means they don´t understand !
Second class citizens?! than probably my parents have raised in completely different country...
And don´t forget about many Slovaks in the head of communist party such Husák or Biľak.
Everything centralized in Czech part ? Just a partly true. Than why Slovakia share on common GDP gradually has increased from 50´s till the end of former republic ? I m really tired from all this blamings from both sides between our nations.
Actually i m really confused what this article wants to say.
Anyway, Wish you all the best my little big country.

“Czechs don’t understand what I say, but I understand what they say,” she continued.

Czechs and Slovaks speak different, if closely related, languages. In Czechoslovakia, television time for the entire country was in a 2:1 ratio of Czech to Slovak, the ratio of the two populations, and everybody had at least a passive knowledge of the "other" language. You could often hear conversations in which a Czech and a Slovak were each speaking their own language, but understanding what the other was saying with no problem. Since the split-up, the Slovaks have continued to follow Czech broadcasts and read Czech books and periodicals, but the Czechs no longer see any need to learn Slovak. Czech books are readily available in Slovakia, but finding Slovak books even in Prague can be a challenge. (There's one small store subsidized, I believe, by the Slovak government.)

I want to add, traditionally, something politically incorrent. Compare Czech Republic and Slovakia. For western, political correct idiots, Czech Republic is "liberal, pro-western, pro-european, atheist, modern country" and Slovakia is "backward, traditional, conservative, anti-european, religious, backwater of Europe". It is only a theory. In fact, it is Czech Republic which is anti-european, demo-liberal, backward and Slovakia is modern, pro-european, conservative country.
So, for TE editors it is hard to say, that religious, traditional and conservative country like Slovakia (or Switzerland, Austria, Bavaria)are simply more modern, industrious, more pro-european, than so called "liberal, pro-gay, anti-religious". It is better to be conservative, rich and industrious than "liberal" and poor.
It was, socially conservative (for me even too conservative)Mikulas Dzurinda who was the father of modern Slovakia. So, it is a good lesson for all of European countries - be more conservative socially and more liberal economically, simply, be more right-wing.

The standing of the Czech R. vs Slovak R. should be rather compared to England vs. Ireland / Scotland or Sweden vs. Finland.

CZE/ENG/SWE are countries stemming from long history and politics of liberal civic society. They all form seemingly self-contained environment that does not much look towards EU (Euro-scepticism, preserving local currencies, etc.) but they are being destroyed by non-EU immigration forming multicultural societies because the "national" aspect in politics is missing. The rule is driven by personal greed which is also what immigrants to those countries understand and pursue (they don't come there for the love of the country).

On the other hand SVK/IRL SCO)/FIN are rather smaller, population-stable countries driven by national pride who understand that they can best achieve their national interests within the EU framework rather than being dependent on their bigger brothers. They are fairly open-minded and activist and the nationalism partially neutralizes the personal greed since the national development is important part in decision making process of politicians. That's why they have adopted Euro and are active in the pan-European context.

I'm honestly quite sympathetic with the latter approach because it is the best way to preserve and develop European cultures and national identities.

Slovakia indeed is history of success. Unlike Poland, it knows what she wants, what is her place in Europe and in the world. Beeing in the Eurozone, 5 million Slovakians are more important in the EU,than 36 Poles.
However, one should knows, that Slovakia has much bigger cultural and culinary heritage or richer history, than beeing only "small, mountainous coutry with Bryndza and Ostiepoks". I don't like Bratislava, I prefer Kosice, but the the best place to visit is southern Slovakia.
It's a pity, that in Poland, so few people really know about its southern neighbour. People are interested in Czech Republic, Poles like Czech beer or Czech movies, but Slovakia for them, is only a place of Bryndza and winter holidays.
Slovakia and Poland should have stronger ties as it is now. More Slovakians should learn Polish and more Poles, especially in the southern part of the country, should learn Slovak.
Slovak language is far more easier to understand or to learn for a Pole, than Czech.

"Slovakia indeed is history of success. Unlike Poland, it knows what she wants, what is her place in Europe and in the world."

Well, well, what a frank admission from now a well known Polish ultra-patriot that Poland does NOT know what she wants ! :) BTW, I don't regard the term 'ultra-patriot' in any derogatory sense. Be that as it may, surely the 5.5 million Slovaks have no ambition to 'challenge' neither the economic supremacy of Germany, nor political ambitions of French and/or British leaders. The Slovaks must be getting their share of the EU infrastructure funding (is it close to Poland's share on per capita basis ?) while being more than happy to provide tourist services to millions of European (and non-Eropean) tourists. It would be interesting to see figures as to how much tourism is contributing to Slovakia's overall trade balance. The bottom line is that Slovakia's present status in the EU is the best overall arrangement for the country compared to the past status of being administered by some Austrian 'noble' representing the foreign Habsburg Empire or, in more recent times, having to follow instructions issued by a Soviet Marshal commanding the Warshaw Pact "alliance" from his HQ in the far-away Warshaw. Now that young Slovaks can forget learning Russian and focus on English and German, life is comfortable at least as long as the Russian Gazprom keeps supplying gas...!

"ultra-patriot" is not so much derogatory as nonsensical. Ultra means beyond due limit, whereas patriotism means devotion to one's country. Seeing as every state needs people, soldiers for instance, prepared to put their lives in harm's way to serve their country, I think expressing devotion only verbally is not especially excessive. Methinks you're trying to insult and deny it at the same time, because calling someone an "ultra-patriot" is hardly an argument.

Congratulations to the Slovakian people. Well done, you have achieved so much and many neighbors are jealous of you (Hungary for instance). I would need here to mention the issue of the Rusyn people(living on the east of what is today Slovakia, west of what is today Ukraine and south of Poland. The Economist should do more to talk about the issue of the Rusyn assimilation, usually in past supported countries where the Rusyns live. The Rusyn autonomous region, which existed when Czechoslovakia was formed, but soon after dismantlement, should be re-installed as Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine owe this set of right to the Rusyn nation, once 10 million people strong, European nation without state of their own.

You seem to be rather unfamiliar with the history of the term Rusyns/Ruthenians and inclined to confuse the broad term with its narrow designation used by the Hungarians in their attempt to retain control of the Transcarpatian region in 1918 and again in 1939. Your reference to "The Rusyn autonomous region, which existed when Czechoslovakia was formed..." implies that you refer to the Hungarian proclamation of December 1918 creating an 'autonomous province' called Ruthenian Land (Ruska Kraina) that in March 1919 supposedly held 'elections' to a fictional legislative 'council' in Mukachevo. You have omitted the fact that after a collapse of Hungarian government by May 1919 the region fell under Czechoslovak control and that the Ruthenian National Council in Uzhorod declared a voluntary union of the Ruthenian territory south of the Carpatian mountains with Czechoslovakia. There is a lot more to the history of the region than you imply, including Hungarian re-occupation in 1939 implementing Hitler's prior decison on division of European lands. Hungary of course had to repay Hitler's 'generosity' by supplying tens of thousands in manpower reinforcements for German armies on the eastern front. It looks like you need to read a number of books on the subject of Rusyn/Ruthenians before offering any further ideas.

Thank you "Didomyk" for all your inputs. I am sure we all find it very informative, but I am afraid you have missed my point completely. I cannot see how is relevant whether Hungary established the Rusyn autonomous region or the Czechoslovak or Soviet authorities? The point is that in the 21st century, in the EU we must ensure resepct of human and ethnic rights of any ethic group and each citizen and so of the Rusyn people too and the preservation of the Rusyn national identity is important in Slovakia which is doing so well. This can be only achieved though institutional frame work that will include cultural and to certain level political autonomy. Not only Slovakia should do this, but also Ukraine. Without such autonomy Rusyn will continue to be assimilate and will gradually disappear from Slovakia, Ukraine, Poland. That would be horrible injustice to this nation since they have been already in past suffering from the wrong political decision. In regard to offering any further ideas I shall continue to do so as I am doing it in a good faith and as a concerned academic and citizen of Europe and world who seek no permission to talk publicly and share my views.

Your call for "... institutional frame work that will include cultural and to certain level political autonomy" is not under dispute. Where we disagree is about historical facts related to the evolution of the term Rusyn/Ruthenian both in the cultural and political sense, over many centuries. Generational evolutions of most nations lead to different identities. Take a closer look almost anywhere in Europe and the difference over the past two or three centuries is striking. Your term "wrong political decisons" is of course subjective. Who is to say which political decisions at any point in history were right ? I don't doubt your good faith but nevertheless the issue of degree of cultural autononomy for any monority in European states is a sensitive one. Let me just say that I have lifetime experience related to minority rights and I have a lot of criticism to offer. So, let's return to discussing Slovakia and I wish you success in your pursuits.

"Rusyn" was basically a term used by the Hapsburgs to identify Catholic Ukrainians or those of the Eastern Rite recognising the Roman Pope's authority.
Its only use in the 21st century would be to create some sort of new state centred around the old Galician Kingdom's capital of Lviv (Lvov, Lwòw, Lemberg, Leopoli, Leopolis) to facilitate the secession of western Ukraine.
Since the western Ukrainians tend to be MORE patriotically Ukrainian ("In the East they are Ukrainian only on the surface and Russian inside" as they like to say) I don't see that happening. Nor do I particularly think we in the West would be aiding political and economic stability or development in the region by encouraging another new nationalism.
The Greeks are right IMO to deny full use of the "Makedonian" name to Skopje. Eastern and Central Europe do not require new ethnicities as a pretext to future wars.

I caught you of being quite a hypocrite. You only pretend to be anti-Stalinist on certain issues but when the Soviets (Stalin’s) deeds have benefited Ukraine your fanatical nationalism comes to surface.

The pre WWII Czechoslovakia bordered with Romania because of Ruthenia was integral part of it through the post-Hapsburg realignment of its various nationalities. After the WWII the area was taken by Stalin from Czechoslovakia simply because of his desire to have access to Hungary. You obviously defend this land grab because it benefited Ukraine. Crimea was another artificial land grab that benefited Ukraine.

It would be quite irrelevant if Ukraine would prosper and become bread basket of Europe as it should be, but instead impoverish Rusyns now illegally crossing to Slovakia via underground tunnels in search of better life from your corrupted and mismanaged country (please do not use the Stalin pogrom card again).

I visited Bratislava earlier this year and was pleasantly surprised by the level of economic development in the city. It is pretty obvious that the Slovaks have leveraged the economic benefits of their proximity to Vienna and Austria quite well. Prague may have a grand and wonderful past, but I felt like in Bratislava I was witnessing the future. Later in the year I crossed the Danube and visited Komarna, a majority Hungarian city in extreme Southern Slovakia. Ironically, the level of prosperity and economic development there made me wonder if these ethnic Hungarians (despite discrimination issues) were luckier to have found themselves on the wrong side of history. Slovakia like Poland is the future of a Central Europe enjoying a valuable economic relationship with Germany.

Your knowledge about Poland and Slovakia is very weak. Bratislava is not Slovakia (historical capital of Slovakia is rather Nitra, than Bratislava)but the central and southern part of the country.
Germany is not a future for Poland, only good partner, next to France, Italy, UK, Ukraine, Russia, US, etc.
Don't believe in this rubbish, written by "pro-German Poles from Breslau, Danzig or Posen", I am very pro-German, but in realistic terms, since I live closer to Belarus or Ukraine, than to Warsaw.
I have better, more critial look for the whole situation.

Nitra may be the historical capital, but Bratislava is undoubtedly the economic capital. It is not pro-German rubbish to say that the Slovaks (and the Poles)have benefited and will continue to benefit from their business/trade ties to Germany, much more so than with the other nations you mentioned. Face it, Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe. France is headed toward a major fiscal calamity, the UK (along with France) is much too far afield, Italy (please - let's stop the nonsense) the Ukraine has great possibilities, but has an internal political mess that will not be sorted out until they finally break the Russian yoke. As for Russia they sit atop a mountain of resources, but due to authoritarianism, endemic corruption and a horrific demographic crisis, they are likely headed towards stagnation at best, chaos at worst.

We haven't benefited and don't benefit as a country from beeing "German colony". Germany has good short-term perspectives but its demography is weak and has bleak prospects. Noone wants to emigrate to Germany and Germans don't want to "import" anyone outside Europe (everyone knows how "industrious" are German Turks).
Look at demography, look at long-term perspective (20-30 or even more years) - Poland has no future in the current model. We should radically change our attitude, to be more global, not "pro-european". The biggest idiocy, which current government made, was going into "european mainstream" to be close to Germany and to closer to Russia. Russia treat in the same way as they treated Poland in history, without respect, the same is with Germany. Poles built high-speed railways and highways to the German border, but Germans didn't do the same (and don't want to)on their part of the border.
Slovakia, Czech Republic are small countries with no "global" traditions. Historically, Poland is one of the most globalised countries (about 1/3 of Polish nation, living outside Poland, mainly in Americas: US, Brazil, Argentina, many global explorers were Polish, Poles fought on the many fronts along the world, etc.). So, we should focus on the global stage, just like Germany, France, Italy, Britain, Spain,beeing in the EU, but seeking the opportunities in Asia, Africa and Americas.
Besides, our mentality is totally different than the German, Czech or Slovak one, in the negative terms, of course.

Germany as an economic powerhouse is over-rated- especially by Germans. Their banks are a disaster.

France is no way headed toward a major fiscal calamity - unless you believe Anglo-Saxon propaganda.

And if you really have such a view of Italy, then your opinions are risible.
I was visiting Prague in summer of 2006 when a German tourist shouted at us: "You Italians! I hate you!"
"And why is that" I asked.
"Because you beat us at the World Cup, when we should have won!"

I answered her, "Never underestimate a country shaped like a boot and ball when it comes to football".

"We [Poland] haven't benefited and don't benefit as a country from beeing 'German colony'. Germany has good short-term perspectives but its demography is weak and has bleak prospects. Noone wants to emigrate to Germany and Germans don't want to 'import' anyone outside Europe (...)."

___________________________________

Oh, boy.

1. Poland is not a "German colony" - that is propaganda talking point typical for the lunatic fringes of the political right in Poland.

2. Poland's demographic trend EXACTLY matches Germany's (1.4-1.6 children/woman, depending on when you stop counting, at age 40 or 45), but WITHOUT immigration and still noticeable emigration. In other words: Poland's population is shrinking A LOT faster than Germany's (the real number of inhabitants is closer to 36 million than to the official 38.5 already, but Polish authorities double-count emigrants to EU countries in order to keep subsidies attributed per capita).

3. Germany currently receives the highest number of immigrants of ANY EU member state: 500,000 in 2012 alone, of which half are expected to stay for good, the by far largest group being Poles. That's double the number as for the UK. You can call that good or bad, but it's a fact.

As a Slovak-American I am proud of the beautiful little country in the middle of Europe. It was a pleasure to visit it in 2011 and looks forward to many returns. Congratulations on this anniversary milestone.

It is worth to go back in history to 1938 for clear evidence how much the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia following the Sept. 27, 1938 Munich conference was an international affair. The meeting of Neville Chmberlain of Britain and Edouard Daladier of France with Hitler and Mussolini sealed the fate of both the Czechs and the Slovaks. This part of Chamberlain's radio speach clearly spelled out the British view:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing".

It remained up to the Slovaks who opposed the Czech 'centralism' to negotiate with Berlin about the status of the new Slovak 'state', proclaimed on March 14, 1939, one day before Hitler's troops marched into Prague with Bohemia and Moravia becoming a "Protectorate of the Reich".